Attacked While Armed = Lethal Force?

This is a discussion on Attacked While Armed = Lethal Force? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Like most people who carry, my buds and I like to talk out scenarios to better prepare ourselves in the event one plays out. We ...

Attacked While Armed = Lethal Force?

Like most people who carry, my buds and I like to talk out scenarios to better prepare ourselves in the event one plays out. We all have military backgrounds so "mental training" is a continuous thing with us.

So, we're talking about guns as usual, and one guy says that if he is attacked while carrying, and even if the attacker isn't armed, he considers that to be a lethal threat as if he is overpowered, his weapon could be used against him. It is an interesting perspective and one I suspect has been discussed on this forum before; but for my benefit I would like to hear some opinions on this.

If the attack against me rose to the level of threatening my life or the lives of my loved ones, damned right I would use whatever force was necessary to halt the attack. That's the whole point: surviving the violence, no matter the cost to the BG ... even if it kills him.

I'm all for avoiding the violence if the BG will allow it. Who wouldn't? However, when such a choice is forced, the choice becomes fairly simple. Hard, but simple.

Now, if the ONLY thing that raises the situation to anything resembling a lethal threat is the mere fact that I'm armed and I know it, I would absolutely not equate that with a lethal attack. IMO, there's a difference. Reality is, though, if my weapon gets taken from me, I am not naive enough to believe in a 0% chance it'll be used against me.

In my specific case, it's a bit simpler. I'm somewhat disabled by an injury in my hip/leg. I cannot withstand a physical attack for long. I cannot run. I have no requirement (by a mommy-may-I state) that I run first. I will stand my ground, as I have every right to be there. I will not allow my weapon to be taken. If the threat of being overpowered (and likely killed) is there, I will use up to lethal force to stop the threat. The gauge is, the mortal threat from the attack. The laws where I am support this, thankfully.

If attacked while armed, you are under no requirement to draw and fire. Common sense would be to retain your weapon and not let the BG get the weapon.

If there is a disparity of force (he's huge, strong, drunk, has demonstrated violence) that's one thing. But I would not feel comfortable just shooting anyone you had a fistfight with because you had a gun there.

Interesting side note from the flip side if you are bare fisted, and I am barefisted with a concealed gun and we throw punches - in my state, you get charged with assault, I get charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Simple possession of the weapon gets the higher charge - even if it is concealed the whole time.

Oh wait this is a texas question? Can't you just conscripit a firing squad right there and shoot the BG simply because he doesn't have a gun? :-)

In Utah, if two men are involved in a fist fight, its "mano emano" (one on one). I expect it doesnt matter how big or overpowering your assailant is. Now if your attacker brings out some type of tool or device to beat you with, I would think that would be a different story.

If a group of thugs attacked me, I would clear leather then immediately call the Police afterwards. How can a person be expected to defend himself against a group?

I would think that if you are a woman and attacked by a male, this may be a whole different thing.

Really, this question is a matter of opinion here, but, should be directed to an Attorney in your state for clarification.

Like most people who carry, my buds and I like to talk out scenarios to better prepare ourselves in the event one plays out. We all have military backgrounds so "mental training" is a continuous thing with us.

So, we're talking about guns as usual, and one guy says that if he is attacked while carrying, and even if the attacker isn't armed, he considers that to be a lethal threat as if he is overpowered, his weapon could be used against him. It is an interesting perspective and one I suspect has been discussed on this forum before; but for my benefit I would like to hear some opinions on this.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts!

Cheers! M2

I am 60, disabled and can not run. Nor could I last long in any physical attack upon myself. I live in TX, but spend a lot of my time in LA. I'm sure either state would prosecute me for manslaughter, if not murder, for killing some unarmed BG. The facts are that I could not hope to be victorious in any unarmed combat. I'm just not physically able to protect myself in this manner any more. My choices would be to submit (not), or stop the BG. Since I can't do this by physical force alone, I would simply draw my gun and shoot the BG before he could get to me. I am legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I must assume that this BG would take my weapon from me once I was down. He could then use it on me, or anyone else he wanted to. I believe that I have a responsibility to my fellow man not to let this happen. I can assure only one thing, the BG will not be present to witness my trial. Either state would probably prosecute me, but I would rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six!

Well if your carrying u would fall into the saying they drilled into our heads in the academy which is. Every situation you get into their is a gun involved your gun so maby. I would lean twords not looking at it in a lethal encounter every situation but in some cases yes.

and one guy says that if he is attacked while carrying, and even if the attacker isn't armed, he considers that to be a lethal threat as if he is overpowered, his weapon could be used against him.

Let's look at this from a couple of different angles:
1) BGs aren't the smartest of humans, but they do have a fairly refined target-selection model (they wouldn't survive among their peers long, if they didn't). Point being that if your buddy is "selected," the BG is either applying overwhelming/lethal force(or threat of) from the outset, or your buddy has cranio-rectal inversion and doesn't have awareness of what goes on around him and he "looks" like it.

2) What situations does he see as someone going "hands-on" with him? Having other options and not looking for trouble pretty well cover this.

We've been told in the Coast Guard that we need to be able to articulate it. I'm 5'9" 180lbs, if some guy 6'4" 250lbs tries to attack me, then yes I will draw, maybe not draw down and definatly not shoot unless necessary.

As in real estate LOCATION,LOCATION comes into focus. What may be deemed "reasonable" in Texas or Georgia might not wash back in my old homestate of New York. The communities' attitude to those with CCW permits is usually reflected(BUT again, NOT always)in the types of DA's and juries one would have to deal with if the situation rose to the level of possible legal action. In the end, if Joe Six-Pack would have acted exactly like you in a similiar situation the location becomes more moot. One has to be prepared to articulate what was going on and why you took the action you did.

I am 44 and retired from the Army with a 60% disability. 10% of that is because of my back. Although 10% seems small, my back is by far my most painful issue. I wonder whether, if faced with the possibility of severe back pain, and knowing that my back goes out a couple of times each year, would I be justified to shoot before I physically tried to stop someone who was using his hands to attack me or my family? *When my back goes out I pretty much cannot walk--I definately cannot move any way I need to move without screaming if it goes out.

re:

In 2001 I had a brain tumor removed. In the process they left a soft spot (removed part of the skull) on one side of my head. Unfortunately this leaves me very vurnable to a blow to that part of my head which could kill me instantly. So I cannot be involved in a physical altercation as this could be fatal. So in the case, I must treat every physical altercation as a deadly threat. So I try to avoid all confrontations as best I can but if it happens I would be in fear for my life. Don't know how this would hold up in court, but I will take my chances.